Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Isn't a womens clint actually a penis... I'm just saying?I think God did real good when it comes to our sexual organs. No complaints

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 955444

no, the penis is an extension of the clitorisyou were created as a femaleand developed into a male

iow, women were firstthis alone should debunk the whole bs adam/eve creation mythas if women came from a rib, lol

i'm not saying we don't have a creatori'm saying that it's pretty obvious the myth that, in the minds of men back then and even today, the basis of brainwashing religions and their followers, which "justified" in their little heads the subjugation/domination/degradation of women is nothing but wishful bullsh*t

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21195063

Really, why didn't an all female specie go extinct waiting for the evolution to figure out how to unintentionally, accidentally, conceive/design/assemble a male to enable reproduction?

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Enough of this Darwin shit. Its getting really stupid. Can't you think of somthing more productive to do with your time. Whats the fucking point your trying to make anyways. How stupid and ignorant you are? Get a life.

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Dear friend, the reason your TRUE logic and reasoning do not work on these people is simple.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse, Rom 1:21 because, although they knew Elohim, they did not esteem Him as Elohim, nor gave thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 and changed the esteem of the incorruptible Elohim into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds and of four-footed beasts and of reptiles. Rom 1:24 Therefore Elohim gave them up to uncleanness in the lust of their hearts, to disrespect their bodies among themselves, Rom 1:25 who changed the truth of Elohim into the falsehood, and worshipped and served what was created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Am&#277;n. Rom 1:26 Because of this Elohim gave them over to degrading passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature, Rom 1:27 and likewise, the men also, having left natural relations with woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecency, and receiving back the reward which was due for their straying. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not think it worth- while to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind, to do what is improper, Rom 1:29 having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoring, wickedness, greed, evil; filled with envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits; whisperers, Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evils, disobedient to parents, Rom 1:31 without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless; Rom 1:32 who, though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practise such deserve death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practise them.

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Dear friend, the reason your TRUE logic and reasoning do not work on these people is simple.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse, Rom 1:21 because, although they knew Elohim, they did not esteem Him as Elohim, nor gave thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 and changed the esteem of the incorruptible Elohim into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds and of four-footed beasts and of reptiles. Rom 1:24 Therefore Elohim gave them up to uncleanness in the lust of their hearts, to disrespect their bodies among themselves, Rom 1:25 who changed the truth of Elohim into the falsehood, and worshipped and served what was created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Am&#277;n. Rom 1:26 Because of this Elohim gave them over to degrading passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature, Rom 1:27 and likewise, the men also, having left natural relations with woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecency, and receiving back the reward which was due for their straying. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not think it worth- while to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind, to do what is improper, Rom 1:29 having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoring, wickedness, greed, evil; filled with envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits; whisperers, Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evils, disobedient to parents, Rom 1:31 without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless; Rom 1:32 who, though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practise such deserve death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practise them.

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Dear friend, the reason your TRUE logic and reasoning do not work on these people is simple.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse, Rom 1:21 because, although they knew Elohim, they did not esteem Him as Elohim, nor gave thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 and changed the esteem of the incorruptible Elohim into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds and of four-footed beasts and of reptiles. Rom 1:24 Therefore Elohim gave them up to uncleanness in the lust of their hearts, to disrespect their bodies among themselves, Rom 1:25 who changed the truth of Elohim into the falsehood, and worshipped and served what was created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Am&#277;n. Rom 1:26 Because of this Elohim gave them over to degrading passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature, Rom 1:27 and likewise, the men also, having left natural relations with woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecency, and receiving back the reward which was due for their straying. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not think it worth- while to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind, to do what is improper, Rom 1:29 having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoring, wickedness, greed, evil; filled with envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits; whisperers, Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evils, disobedient to parents, Rom 1:31 without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless; Rom 1:32 who, though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practise such deserve death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practise them.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19314724

Yes, thank you.

Quoting: DGN

Keep doing what YHVH has called you to do.

I did NOT mean to discourage you, but encourage you.

The message of the Mashiyach Yeshua was also NOT well received.

Those that received it will be glad, and those that did NOT will weep and gnash their teeth.

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Enough of this Darwin shit. Its getting really stupid. Can't you think of somthing more productive to do with your time. Whats the fucking point your trying to make anyways. How stupid and ignorant you are? Get a life.

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

You don't imagine it's because God created nipples on all female mammals from the start to feed their off spring now do you? That wouldn't make sense would it?

Quoting: DGN

Evolution is a complete fantasy. Those that follow it would be good cult followers. What a stupid religion! Here's the story...

Once upon a time there was a strike of lightning that hit a mud puddle. And out of that mud puddle of ammino acids the first life form was suddenly manifest into existence. Then out of the puddle one crawled onto land to become thousands of different species. As we now know there are mass extinctions and after each one there is a new mud puddle and a new lightning strike and it all starts over.

You see the lightning is able to code DNA through a transduction of molecular johnson nodes onto the substructure of anal nocturnal neutrons!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3795766

Evolution does not explain how life begun, it explains the diversity of species.

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Wow, the ignorance of many on the net never ceases to amaze me. I have over 130 credits as a pre-med/cell bio major. The most widely accepted definition of evolution among biologists is "change with time". That is it. That is also a fact. Some prefer "change in allele frequency over time", but pretty much the same thing. Some clowns confuse evolution with Darwinism, spontaneous generation, and other theories that may use evolution as part of it, but are actually different things. Evolution is fact, while the other things I mentioned are theories that use evolution in an attempt to explain something. If you are going to argue/debate, at least get your base facts correct before doing so.

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

OP in all seriousness while you may not believe in evolution at least come up with a sensible argument.

Quoting: delaware

Did this 'time piece' randomly assemble it self or did it have an intelligent designer?

Quoting: DGN

The fact that someone made a clock is your proof that god exists?

Before you start trying to tell me to prove that someone built that clock, I'll address that.

1: I have seen that people can build things out of tinker toys.2: The clock appears to obey all laws of physics.3: The creator infers that he constructed it himself.4: A human creator is partially visible in the video.5: All laws of physics and other observable natural laws make it impossible for the pieces to assemble themselves.6: The video was created and uploaded by its human creator.7: I can recreate the assembly using the human creator's methods, and get the same results.8: The pieces are not living, and therefore cannot work in ways to effect their survival.9: As the pieces cannot act in ways to effect their survival, and as there are no natural laws that cause them to come together in that configuration, there is no cause that the objects would have assembled themselves.10: If there is no cause for the object to assemble itself, then it must have been influenced by something else.

Therefore, given this evidence, I can infer that this was built by a person.

Want to use this as an argument against matter coming together in complex configurations? Go ahead, I've got 4 BILLION years of natural selection taking place on earth and laws of physics that make these types of things natural and common place that's got my back.

Now why don't you try and prove to me God exists and quit with the retarded "prove he doesn't" nonsense?

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

Wow, the ignorance of many on the net never ceases to amaze me. I have over 130 credits as a pre-med/cell bio major. The most widely accepted definition of evolution among biologists is "change with time". That is it. That is also a fact. Some prefer "change in allele frequency over time", but pretty much the same thing. Some clowns confuse evolution with Darwinism, spontaneous generation, and other theories that may use evolution as part of it, but are actually different things. Evolution is fact, while the other things I mentioned are theories that use evolution in an attempt to explain something. If you are going to argue/debate, at least get your base facts correct before doing so.

Quoting: Patrick Bateman

Jehovah wrote the DNA mathematical/chemical equations of every specie. Nothing has greater intelligence than the creator, nothing/no one ever claimed to be able to create one single living cell, in rivalry. 'The evolution' never claimed to be the creator because it can't think or speak, because it doesn't even exist, except in the fantasy land of scientifically ignorant imaginations. The imaginary 'mind of the evolution' is a combo of time and chance. 'Time' is the concept of placing events in sequence relative to the earth's rotation around the sun, it does not think of anything at all. 'Chance' doesn't even exist, everything is the direct result of cause and effect.How much time did you invest in gaining those 130 credits?

Re: Strange how baby mammals didn't starve into extinction while the 'evolution' figured out and created nipples, right Mr Darwin?

And now my response from your other thread. This will look a little out of place since it was an answer to why there were two genders.

Ah, the fallacy that for evolution to be true, one day something would have had to have been born fully developed into the form you see it today. This is going to be fairly long, but I will keep it as short as possible, since I know most of you aren't really interested in getting an answer anyway, you just want to try and shoot holes in evolution that don't exist.

Early on, all organisms were completely lacking in sex. They reproduced through mitochondrial division, which usually produced nearly identical copies of themselves. Over time, as organisms became more complex (multi-celled) they became what one would commonly think of as asexual. In these cases, they needed genetic material from other organisms to produce an offspring, but either organism could create the offspring. They both possessed the ability to do so. This method of reproduction allowed them to create stronger offsprings that shared the trait of paired reproduction, and was able to take advantage of the genetic traits of both parents. Organisms that possessed traits that gave themselves a competitive advantage survived to reproduce further. Asexual organisms that reproduce in this manner still exist, as do the aforementioned organisms that reproduce without the need to interact with others.

As organisms continued to develop into more complex organisms, members with certain chromosome combinations began developing primary sexual characteristics, while their reproductive characteristics for the other half of the reproductive function became less developed. Certain members of the species were better able to function in reproductive roles than others of that species, and thus began the divergence into two sexes. The specialized sexual characteristics allowed these organisms to breed stronger offspring as their reproductive characteristics were better suited for breeding strong offspring and their body could devote a greater part of its make-up to the single sexual characteristic instead of having to split evenly between both, so, as is always the case of survival of the fittest, the weaker members without these specialized characteristics began dying off. Note, these were gradual changes. Slowly the primary sexual characteristics became stronger while their opposite sexual characteristics waned. This was not as you probably want to characterize it, suddenly one insect was born a male and another a female.

Through this progression, we gradually ended up with two well-defined sexes that were only capable of breeding with a member of the opposite sex, but could create far stronger offspring due to their highly developed sexual characteristics. You can find organisms all over the world today that are at the various stages of sexual development and definition throughout the spectrum I have briefly explained.

Now, I eagerly await the straw men and fallacies you religitards use to shoot this down. I don't have any illusions that explaining this to you will change your mind or enlighten you, as I am sure that by this point, you are beyond hope. I only answered because you asked the question and no one else showed you the courtesy to explain how it works under evolutionary theory. I'll also note that I tried to keep this brief, so I am obviously leaving out a lot and don't have room to cite and explain everything in depth. You wanted an answer, I gave it. Now you know how it is explained. You are free to believe whatever you like though.